DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg
590 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript (trial proceedings)
File Size:
590 KB
Summary
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal dispute where prosecutors Ms. Moe and Ms. Comey request to brief an issue regarding photographic evidence, accusing the defense of 'sandbagging' by objecting late. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell denies the accusation, while the Judge notes a 'factual disjointedness' regarding the evidence.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Moe | Attorney (likely Prosecution) |
Requesting opportunity to brief an issue regarding case law and admissibility of photographs.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the argument; expresses concern about 'factual disjointedness' but allows briefing.
|
| Ms. Comey | Attorney (Prosecution) |
Argues that the defense 'sandbagged' the prosecution by objecting to exhibits late.
|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney (Defense) |
Defends against the accusation of sandbagging, arguing the objection was raised at the appropriate time.
|
| Parkinson | Witness |
Mentioned in the header ('Parkinson - Direct'); the witness whose direct examination had just finished.
|
| The Victim | Victim |
Referenced by Ms. Moe regarding the fact that photographs were not shown to them.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Referenced in footer Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR)
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by Case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE and reporter name.
|
Relationships (2)
Ms. Moe refers to 'my colleagues' and both argue on the same side (Prosecution) regarding the exhibits.
Arguing opposite sides of the 'sandbagging' issue.
Key Quotes (3)
"we feel a bit sandbagged here because they could have raised this objection in their motions in limine"Source
— Ms. Comey
(Prosecution complaining about the timing of the defense's objection.)
DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg
Quote #1
"This was not sandbagging."Source
— Mr. Everdell
(Defense counsel rebutting the prosecution's complaint.)
DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg
Quote #2
"There is a factual disjointedness between what you're seeking to enter and based on that testimony."Source
— The Court
(Judge explaining the issue with the evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,485 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 174 of 236 1078
LC3KMAX6 Parkinson - Direct
LC3KMAX6 Parkinson - Direct
1 with my colleagues with that, but we would like an opportunity
2 to brief that issue, your Honor.
3 I understand the Court's concern.
4 THE COURT: To brief it?
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, to examine the case law
6 that your Honor is referring to, consider it, and develop our
7 argument potentially further.
8 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the thinking here is that the
9 defense has had these exhibits for weeks, and we feel a bit
10 sandbagged here because they could have raised this objection
11 in their motions in limine and instead they did it after we had
12 finished our direct of the witness who could have looked at
13 these photographs.
14 MS. MOE: In our view, part of the corroborating
15 impact is that we didn't show these photographs to the victim
16 and --
17 THE COURT: I understand that. And I suppose you
18 still can if you want to. You're welcome to brief it; I have
19 no issue with that. There is a factual disjointedness between
20 what you're seeking to enter and based on that testimony.
21 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if I could be heard on the
22 issue of sandbagging: This was not sandbagging. If we had
23 raised this at the motion in limine stage, the response would
24 have quite rightly been, we're going to have to see what
25 happens at trial, because it's their responsibility to lay a
2 to brief that issue, your Honor.
3 I understand the Court's concern.
4 THE COURT: To brief it?
5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, to examine the case law
6 that your Honor is referring to, consider it, and develop our
7 argument potentially further.
8 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the thinking here is that the
9 defense has had these exhibits for weeks, and we feel a bit
10 sandbagged here because they could have raised this objection
11 in their motions in limine and instead they did it after we had
12 finished our direct of the witness who could have looked at
13 these photographs.
14 MS. MOE: In our view, part of the corroborating
15 impact is that we didn't show these photographs to the victim
16 and --
17 THE COURT: I understand that. And I suppose you
18 still can if you want to. You're welcome to brief it; I have
19 no issue with that. There is a factual disjointedness between
20 what you're seeking to enter and based on that testimony.
21 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if I could be heard on the
22 issue of sandbagging: This was not sandbagging. If we had
23 raised this at the motion in limine stage, the response would
24 have quite rightly been, we're going to have to see what
25 happens at trial, because it's their responsibility to lay a
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018275
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document